How do you think Pope John Paul II fares in his exercising of the papacy? Is it in the spirit of Vatican II, or is he taking the papacy back to the pre-Vatican II days, as some suggest?

This is just a personal opinion but as Mollie Sugden's character, Mrs. Slocombe, was fonding of saying . . . "And I am unanimous in this!" . . . JP-II has implemented fully Vatican II. When first elected to the Papacy the liberals thought that he was going to shut Vatican II down. Well he didn't but he hasn't implemented V-II, according to the liberals' conception of the "spirit" of Vatican II. Liturgiam Authenticam is the latest thorn in liberals' side along with younger or more recently ordained priests in many though not all dioceses of the U.S. that actually want to be priests and not just "good buddies" with the laity or exponents of the political aspects of Social Justice. To aggravate the blood pressure of the liberals, these recently ordained Catholic priests actually have the temerity to teach Catholic teaching from the ambo during mass! Imagine that!

Frs. Andrew Greeley and Richard McBrien, the NC Reporter, et. al., are really complaining vociferously about this restorational turn in the Catholic Church!

Nevertheless, despite the recent alleged "springtime" supposedly going on, it is also my opinion that the AmChurch episcopacy as a corporate group (USCCB) has not been all that enthusiastic about JP-II and are just waiting him out.

My usually pessimistic self predicts (I'm often wrong, thank God!) that a liberal Pope will be elected after JP-II's repose and whatever is good about Liturgiam Authenticam and even the most minor revisions that have recently been made to the Roman Missal will be undone in short order.

Frs. Andrew Greeley and Richard McBrien, the NC Reporter, et. al., are really complaining vociferously about this restorational turn in the Catholic Church!

They'd certainly complain about Una Voce and the F.S.S.P., but how is our pope "restoring" the Church?

Quote

Nevertheless, despite the recent alleged "springtime" supposedly going on, it is also my opinion that the AmChurch episcopacy as a corporate group (USCCB) has not been all that enthusiastic about JP-II and are just waiting him out.

Of course, J.P. II could abolish them. Besides, the liberal USCCB (and the other Bishop conferences) are not traditional, AFAIK. But he will not abolish the liberal powers' it's his fault.

Quote

My usually pessimistic self predicts (I'm often wrong, thank God!) that a liberal Pope will be elected after JP-II's repose and whatever is good about Liturgiam Authenticam and even the most minor revisions that have recently been made to the Roman Missal will be undone in short order.

I mean this in good spirits, but H.H. John Paul II is the most liberal pope thus far. I mean, I'd fear to think whatSt. Pius X, for example, might think of him!

He has done many great things (esp. Orientale Lumen, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, among others), and then many controversial things (kissing the sinister Koran, Assisi gatherings, etc). If the next pontiff is more liberal then him, kyrie eleison.

Pax Christi.

Logged

If we live as people of God, there will be room for all nations in the Balkans and in the world. If we liken ourselves to Cain who killed his brother Abel, then the entire earth will be too small even for two people. The Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to be

If we live as people of God, there will be room for all nations in the Balkans and in the world. If we liken ourselves to Cain who killed his brother Abel, then the entire earth will be too small even for two people. The Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to be

A traditionalist I know feels it accurate to describe the Pope as a centrist. His top priority is unity in the Catholic Church, and that calls for the appeasement of factions. Unfortunately, this is not a prudent strategy, and it has not done much good in the area of liturgy, this pontificate having presided over the worst liturgical deterioration in the Church's history. However, the Pope is in the proper end of the playing field in both the culture wars and in the matter of war and peace in the international arena (sans pro-U.N. content).

Of course, J.P. II could abolish them. Besides, the liberal USCCB (and the other Bishop conferences) are not traditional, AFAIK. But he will not abolish the liberal powers' it's his fault.

Abolish them? Who listens to the Pope anyway? Certainly not many in the hierarchy or many of the rank and file RC's it would seem. And certainly not the Orthodox! [lame attempt at humor]

I mean this in good spirits, but H.H. John Paul II is the most liberal pope thus far. I mean, I'd fear to think what St. Pius X, for example, might think of him!

The heresy of Modernism as Pope St. Pius X condemned it is alive and well in the RCC as well as in society itself. JPII, however, is not a modernist. His encyclicals demonstrate the need to "engage the culture." I'm not sure it is working out. Did the Orthodox try to engage the culture of Communist Russia? No, the communists didn't even listen or give Orthodoxy a chance. They just deleted it (martyrdom), coopted it (some sort of Officially sanctioned Church), and/or drove it underground (the Catacomb Church). Currently the RCC is on the radar screen of our society's modernists who want to destroy it or coopt it; once Orthodoxy gets on their radar screens the same thing will be attempted with the Orthodox, that is, if it hasn't already started!

He has done many great things (esp. Orientale Lumen, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, among others), and then many controversial things (kissing the sinister Koran, Assisi gatherings, etc). If the next pontiff is more liberal then him, kyrie eleison.

I can't argue with this statement!

Also, the "liturgical renewel" has far been less then wonderful.

Sure seems like it to me too. In "Witness to Hope," the recent biography of JP-II supposedly, according to the author (George Weigel), the implementation of Vatican II worked much better in Poland than in the rest of the West. I don't know if it is true. Now that Poland is "free" of communist domination, its society seemingly has embraced Western secularism wholeheartedly with birth control, abortion, divorce, materialism, etc.

Sam B writes:

A traditionalist I know feels it accurate to describe the Pope as a centrist. His top priority is unity in the Catholic Church, and that calls for the appeasement of factions. Unfortunately, this is not a prudent strategy, and it has not done much good in the area of liturgy, this pontificate having presided over the worst liturgical deterioration in the Church's history. However, the Pope is in the proper end of the playing field in both the culture wars and in the matter of war and peace in the international arena (sans pro-U.N. content).

I look upon him too as a centrist. I see him as conservative theologically and some sort of progressive socially in the sense that he does not like capitalism or communism. JP-II does not believe either system is satisfying the need of individual persons. He has a point up to a point. His philosophical approach can be called "personalist" and is derived in some sense from the Philosophy of Phenomenology that was promulgated by Edmund Husserl and Husserl's most prominent student, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein). Although the pope is essentially conservative, there are many in that Roman snake pit (i.e., the Curia) who are very liberal and who have vested interests in the current interpretation of Vatican II (the "spirit" of V2). Yet there are some RC bishops even some in AmChurch, that hotbed of "mush" in terms of collective leadership that are trying to teach the faith.

One problem with Vatican II is how it has been interpreted in the post-V2 scene. For example, the Dogmatic Constitution Sacrosanctum Consilium called for changes in the liturgy. What the liberals who believe in the "spirit" of V2 don't tell you is that the Council Fathers called for the retention of Latin in the liturgy and the restoration of Gregorian Chant in the mass (to be sung by the laity!). Unfortunately, there are many instances within the Council's documents that the wording is so loose that you could drive a Mack Truck through it. Many people don't like the RCC either today or in the "old" days. But in pre-V2 days when something came out "in writing," at least you knew where the Church stood. You could like it or dislike it based upon something more concrete than the pablum that is often pumped out today. But this is just my personal opinion. Most fellow Catholics I encounter disagree with me. I'm a curmudgeonly throwback to them, a Medieval mastodon whose time is long past.

One board related comment--how the heck to you get the quote function to work easily when all you want to do is quote partially from another's post or take partial quotes from more than one post? I had to do the above very clumsily by cut and paste to my word processor, then paste back onto OC.net and then format with italics, etc.

But I thought that the RC's have had 21 ecumenical councils? Did all the previous 20 end in a schism?

No post-V2 schism? How about the SSPX? . . . the various sedevacantist groups?

And how about the "we are all one church group?" when perhaps 20% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence as it is taught by the RCC???

Several years ago a professional catechist (in a paid position) denied the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the BVM in front of my two young elementary school children (she was talking with someone else in earshot of us). She quoted the "Theologians teach . . . " as authority and not the Magisterium. What would St. John Chrysostom say to her or the bishops who attended Ephesus say to her? How about "anathema sit?" I'm lucky that I'm not in jail for manslaughter or murder. She had the audacity to say this in front of my own children, the wicked %$*@!

There is a defaco schism in the RCC today. It is not necessarily a schism along the liberal-----conservative-----traditional continuum although it can seem so at times. You will find some liberals more or less in union with the teachings of the RCC (not many in my opinion) but there are many that are not only "cafeteria Catholics" but just plain semi-church goers with no spiritual life in themselves. The term I heard once that accurately describes this is "white washed sepulchres."

Unfortunately, this is not a prudent strategy, and it has not done much good in the area of liturgy, this pontificate having presided over the worst liturgical deterioration in the Church's history.

I agree with most of Samer wrote but have to disagree with this statement. In my 1970's pre-JPII parish, things were much worse than they are now. We sang Peter, Paul and Mary songs during the liturgy. There was no Crucifix over the altar. We had tacky felt banners instead.

Things are not great there even today but they're better. I'm not one of those conservative Catholics who believe that things are getting a lot better but they are better and IMHO that should be noted.

What's interesting is all of the priests in my 1970's pre-JPII childhood parish left the priesthood in the late 1970's.

What JPII did for the liturgy is appoint conservative bishops (at least to middle of nowhere dioceses like the one I grew up in) who in turn ordained "conservative" (from "conservative lite" to "conservative all the way") priests. Even the "lite conservative" priests (who in my experience are not 100% convinced about birth control) don't sing Peter, Paul & Mary songs during Mass but still have folk Masses illustrating the illusion of JPII's papacy restoring the Church to where it was before the Council.

In my experience things were absolutely terrible in terms of the liturgy when JPII became pope and meddled a little bit giving the illusion that things were getting better and fixed some of the more agregious problems. He deserves credit for making things better but IMO he could have made things much better which he didn't do.

Several years ago a professional catechist (in a paid position) denied the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the BVM in front of my two young elementary school children (she was talking with someone else in earshot of us). She quoted the "Theologians teach . . . " as authority and not the Magisterium. What would St. John Chrysostom say to her or the bishops who attended Ephesus say to her?

I meant to say Constantinople II instead of Ephesus. C-II addresses the Holy Mother of God as "ever-Virgin."

I was raised in one of the best conservative diocese in the country, Tulsa, OK. Tulsa has a FSSP parish (it's officially a parish) and the Clear Creek Monastery. Bishop Slattery is a very good conservative bishop. But things were much different there twenty years ago. Although there is certainly something to be said for being "off the beaten path." Even when things were weird there, it wasn't that weird because no one with any ambition would be a priest there. We also didn't have many nuns to go off the deep end. There was no Jesuit college to twist the faith.

Unfortunately I've moved to much more "normal" diocese.

But I would say that based on my experience even here, in a "normal" diocese, things aren't as weird as before JPII. For example, I've been to the "weirdest" church here (and I was shocked, believe me) where they sang "Gather Us In" instead of "How Many Roads Must a Man Walk Down." That's certainly a step in the right direction. As much as I hate "Gather Us In," at least it's a hymn instead of a popular folk song. (I should probably qualify this by admitting that I love Bob Dylan, I just don't want to sing his songs during Mass.) The Mass was full of other liturgical abuses.

But arguably things might really be worse (even if they look better) because when I was a kid, the adults all knew the faith. They'd all grown up attending Catholic schools. Unfortunately one of the lessons they'd learned was to always defer to Father so-and-so and Sister so-and-so, so they didn't pass on what they'd learned to their children. Now the average Catholic adult doesn't know anything so they think "Gather Us In" is a traditional Catholic song (they really do, I'm not kidding about this). The adults of my childhood knew "How Many Roads..." wasn't a traditional Catholic song.

I guess I really don't know for sure what I think about this. In general, the American Church is in real trouble, but there are bright spots. I doubt that those "bright spots" would have existed under the previous pope because the "bright spots" come from the traditionalists and the conservative groups formed under his direction.

Abolish them? Who listens to the Pope anyway? Certainly not many in the hierarchy or many of the rank and file RC's it would seem.

Very true, who listens anyway? He could still abolish them. The liberals have too much power.

Quote

JPII, however, is not a modernist.

I am not accusing him of modernism, but some of his actions constitute modernism.

Quote

I'm not sure it is working out.

No.

Quote

Did the Orthodox try to engage the culture of Communist Russia? No, the communists didn't even listen or give Orthodoxy a chance.

Well, if they tried to engage it, they probably would have been jailed or executed (which happened to some anyhow).

Currently the RCC is on the radar screen of our society's modernists who want to destroy it or coopt it; once Orthodoxy gets on their radar screens the same thing will be attempted with the Orthodox, that is, if it hasn't already started!

Quote

Sure seems like it to me too.

It probably has received more success in the Third World (because most of them pushed for liturgical innovation anyhow), but it has been a terrible flop in the First World nations. Serious loss of Faith and practice. Check out some of Michael Davies' stuff, very learned-guy.

Quote

Now that Poland is "free" of communist domination, its society seemingly has embraced Western secularism wholeheartedly with birth control, abortion, divorce, materialism, etc.

Poland has one of the highest rates of practicing Catholics (80-88% of the people), but that number, probably like many other nations, declined since the 1960's.

I agree with everything else that you posted below.

Logged

If we live as people of God, there will be room for all nations in the Balkans and in the world. If we liken ourselves to Cain who killed his brother Abel, then the entire earth will be too small even for two people. The Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to be

Very true, who listens anyway? He could still abolish them. The liberals have too much power. I am not accusing him of modernism, but some of his actions constitute modernism.

You're right, the liberals have too much power. However, they are everywhere. They have literally been "incultured" into every aspect of the Church on the USCCB, diocesan, parish, and school levels.

And sorry if you misunderstood my last post, I had never implied that you were accusing JP-II of modernism. I really can't explain the Koran stuff. As far as the 1st Assissi gathering, I perceive that his intentions were honorable but the meeting wasn't carried off well. I don't know what Rome was thinking about having a communal prayer across so many different religions. I don't think that JP-II would have signed onto anything intentionally related to religious syncretism. As far as the 2nd Assissi gathering, Rome was much more careful about group activities--i.e., not having a communal prayer session. However, "talking" never hurts!

Quote

It probably has received more success in the Third World (because most of them pushed for liturgical innovation anyhow), but it has been a terrible flop in the First World nations. Serious loss of Faith and practice. Check out some of Michael Davies' stuff, very learned-guy.

I am quite familiar with Davies' books. Read several of them already. Michael Davies is dying of cancer. Advanced prostate cancer I believe. He could use some intercessory prayer from the folks on OC.net right now.

Quote

Poland has one of the highest rates of practicing Catholics (80-88% of the people), but that number, probably like many other nations, declined since the 1960's.

Well . . . thanks to Western secularism. I wonder how the Orthodox are doing in Poland lately? Although a minority in Poland, I perceive that they are a highly significant minority.

<<No post-V2 schism? How about the SSPX? . . . the various sedevacantist groups?>>

SSPX wasn't out of the RCC until like 1988 because Lefevbre illicitly consecrated four bishops. The other groups are just a joke...most of them don't acknowledge any of the popes after Pius XII.

OK . . . so the SSPX "schism" was delayed by a few years! The issues still involved V-II. The principal complaint of the SSPX was the V-II Decree on Ecumenism which they claimed watered down the Catholic faith. And of course they objected to the Consilium's effort to reform the liturgy by building a synthetic liturgy and not reforming one through organic change.

Although I think that the language of the Decree could have been tightened up a bit, the RCC wanted to be irenic (for a change) and enter into dialogue with other Christians. You might recall that the EP of Constantinople, Patriarch Atenagoras approached Pius XII in the 1950's about better relations between RC's and Orthodoxy--actually an ecumenical move aimed at settling the historic issues and reuniting the Churches. Pius XII's response was to "submit first . . . talk later." This was a disastrous, faux pas on Pius' part. I think that the Decree on Ecumenism was intended at least in part to undo Pius XII's mistake.

There is even a sedevacantist group that claims that there has been no true pope since the death of Pope St. Pius X! Yes, kinda sad!

You really think JPII's been the most liberal? I would've thought Paul VI or John XXIII would get that award. There are those who have observed a noticeable contrast between the pontificates of JPII and the aforementioned popes in that crucial area of primatial exercising, pointing out a less collegial approach and the diminishing role of the episcopal conference. I have a feeling that Rome may've become a little more cautious with non-Italian popes and will stick to Italians or French candidates for the papacy when JPII's time has come.

Quote

What the liberals who believe in the "spirit" of V2 don't tell you is that the Council Fathers called for the retention of Latin in the liturgy and the restoration of Gregorian Chant in the mass (to be sung by the laity!).

That's a very good question. Systemically? I don't think so but there is still a battle to wage. On the other hand there are organizations such as Adoremus (I'm a member--donate and you get their monthly newletter/magazine) that are promoting a more rational reform of the modern mass. They, among others, are accused of being restorationists. The liberals are right. They are! So am I!

There are some parishes throughout the country that have a Novus Ordo Missae in Latin with real church music, meaning sacred music. One example, is St. John Cantius in Chicago (which also has the Indult latin mass). The biblical readings are usually in English. Perhaps some other prayers too. Nevertheless, there is due respect for the right worship of God and respect for the official language of the Roman Rite in a traditionally celebrated Novus Ordo Missae.

There are glimmers of hope here and there but I don't know what will happen. At least the newly ordained priests I have met in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe--not a statistical sample, mind you--are orthodox in the faith (in terms of the RCC!) and at least celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae according to what rubrics are specified. But are they aware of so much that is IMHO missing when it comes to sacred liturgy? I don't know.

Traditional Catholic devotions are coming back strong! e.g., rosaries, Exposition of the Most Holy Eucharist with Benediction, etc. This is a good sign. How extensive is this? I really don't know (yet).

Another thing coming back but has a very long way to go is the traditional Latin Mass. Priestly Fraternities that have permission from Rome to celebrate the liturgy and sacraments according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 such as the FSSP have to turn candidates for the priesthood away for lack of room. Imagine that! They and some other small groups are experiencing a boomlet in vocations. And young folks are discovering the ancient liturgy too. BTW, I have read "somewhere" that Gregorian Chant is becoming commercially successful. The customers are not just Catholic or even religious. I wonder what might happen if the world out there becomes acquainted with Eastern European (Slavonic) sacred music? I bet it would take off commercially and be a good source of evangelization!

I knew immediately after writing this that I'd regret saying it because I couldn't remember exactly where I read it! But I do recall reading it. Please give me some time to try to look up a source. I may have it in a book in my library.

This is the biography of Sister Pascalina, a German nun who was Pius XII's housekeeper, personal secretary, and confidant going back to his days as Papal Nuncio in Germany. She was a rabid anti-Nazi and was also hated by the Vatican Curia (a glowing recommendation for her character IMHO!), especially by Cardinal Tisserant! She had great referent power in the Vatican. She could and did control access to Pius XII and frustrated a lot of political gamesmanship on the part of Curial Cardinals, including Cardinal Tisserant.

According to the biography she was the one who made most of the arrangements on behalf of Pius XII to sequester Jews in the Vatican, in Castel Gandolfo and elsewhere. She also arranged for the payment of a large sum in gold to the German Nazi authorities in Rome as "extortion money" to keep at least some Jews from being shipped out of Rome to the German work/death camps. The gold was obtained by melting down many sacred vessels in the Vatican--chalices, ciboria, patens, ostentoria, etc. or so the biography indicates.

This biography presents Pius XII as a good man who was very devout but also, like ALL OF US, a person with character flaws. Most people know that he was rather stern, severe, and unemotional, at least in dealing with people, especially in public. He was also into the pomp and Kingly aura of being a Pope, much of this being "deleted" during the subsequent pontificates of Paul VI, et. al. Most people, however, don't know that Sr. Pascalina considered Pius XII a mama's boy in many ways although she considered him a good friend and a great man!

Pius XII was raised principally by his mother. I have known a few mama's boys in my time. They are very difficult to deal with IMHO.

I do not own the book. I read it nearly 20 years ago, shortly after it was published. I think my local public library has it. If so, I will check it out and see if I can find the statement Re Pius XII and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. If it is not there, I'll look elsewhere and post it or PM you, or retract my statement if I fail to find a reference. However, I DO REMEMBER reading this somewhere!

My few words on the subject: the right people (liberals) hate him but I'm not an EWTN 'I own the complete set of JPII collector's plates' groupie of this Pope. An example why not, in two words: altar girls.

Supposedly each diocesan bishop can allow this "indult." In my archdiocese many years ago a priest on the archdiocesan staff was pidgeon-holed by some TV journalist in a sound bite and asked him why the archbishop allowed altar girls before this was approved specifically by Rome. Flustered no doubt by being ambushed by this rambunctious reporter, the priest could only utter the fatuous remark that the archbishop had exercised "creative obedience." [this is an exact quote!]

Nothing creative about it . . . also nothing obedient about it! Same with communion in the hand. It was approved inmany dioceses before being approved by Rome. Now it is a universal practice in the RCC.

Nothing creative about it . . . also nothing obedient about it! Same with communion in the hand. It was approved inmany dioceses before being approved by Rome. Now it is a universal practice in the RCC.

The D.P. snorts at this; as an Anglican, the American RCC needs to be less concerned about bread in the hand and more about prayer in the mouth. JP II has nothing to do with the current American liturgical problems and couldn't do anything to fix them anyway.

I think the big legacy (besides helping to knock down communism) is one we haven't seen thr fruits of yet. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the next convocation is going to pick a pope from the 3rd world. With the cardinals he has named, they have the numbers now to look at the Anglican mess and not go and do likewise. And the thing is that such a new pope may well be truly conservative, but not in the way that is going to gladden the SSPXers.

The D.P. snorts at this; as an Anglican, the American RCC needs to be less concerned about bread in the hand and more about prayer in the mouth. JP II has nothing to do with the current American liturgical problems and couldn't do anything to fix them anyway.

I think the big legacy (besides helping to knock down communism) is one we haven't seen thr fruits of yet. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the next convocation is going to pick a pope from the 3rd world. With the cardinals he has named, they have the numbers now to look at the Anglican mess and not go and do likewise. And the thing is that such a new pope may well be truly conservative, but not in the way that is going to gladden the SSPXers.

Not a safe bet but a very strong possibility that a 3rd World Pope will be next on the papal throne. The 3rd World RCC is pretty much conservative and faithful. The AmChurch and the rest of Catholicism in the 1st world, however, has lots of $'s and lots of influence that those $'s provide.

As far as communion in the hand, I still don't like it although I have received it this way myself. The practice in the RCC is still a long-term, innovative, liberal fad rather than a return to the early Church as is often proclaimed by AmChurch enthusiasts.

I agree with you on "prayer in the mouth" although I would also like to add "prayer of the heart" [Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.] This should be prayed by more Catholics more often. Many RC'ers have lost the sense of sin and replaced it almost entirely with Social Justice concerns. Social Justice is a valid concern that Christians must pursue. But so is "theosis." They threw the baby out with the bath water.

You are correct that JP-II can't be blamed for American liturgical problems but the buck ultimately stops somewhere. And I must admit (reluctantly)--even though I'm the proverbial "throwback" at heart--that there are at least some hierarchs in the U.S. AmChurch that are trying to work at liturgical reformation within the cultural limits of the Novus Ordo environment.

The SSPX look Catholic but they really aren't. They are not in union with the Pope even though they claim they are. There are many within the RCC who are supposedly in union with the Pope that appear to be Catholic but really aren't when it comes to that which they believe. Much of this un-belief is from ignorance and poor catechesis but there is also a lot contumaceously intentional un-belief.

[As far as communion in the hand, I still don't like it although I have received it this way myself. The practice in the RCC is still a long-term, innovative, liberal fad rather than a return to the early Church as is often proclaimed by AmChurch enthusiasts.]

I don't know about it being a fad. I remember being told of a Patristic passage talking about communion in the hand. I was told this in a course on sacramental theology by a conservative priest in one of the more conservative seminaries in the USA. I wish I could remember the Church Father cited. As far as it being a "universal" practice I know of some parishes where the priest will give communion on the tongue.

[I agree with you on "prayer in the mouth" although I would also like to add "prayer of the heart" [Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.] This should be prayed by more Catholics more often.]

I agree about the need for more prayer whether it be the Jesus prayer or the rosary or some other devotion. The loss of many devotions is very disheartening. More importantly we've lost the whole idea of the sacred. I do agree some bishops and priests are trying to restore it but not enough.

Not a safe bet but a very strong possibility that a 3rd World Pope will be next on the papal throne. The 3rd World RCC is pretty much conservative and faithful. The AmChurch and the rest of Catholicism in the 1st world, however, has lots of $'s and lots of influence that those $'s provide.

Well, see, that's where I think you're being parochial. Everyone said this about the Anglican bishops before the last Lambeth conference, too, and in the end the conservatives dominated and would have prevailed utterly were it not for a bit of parliamentary maneuvering.

Quote

I agree with you on "prayer in the mouth" although I would also like to add "prayer of the heart" [Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.] This should be prayed by more Catholics more often. Many RC'ers have lost the sense of sin and replaced it almost entirely with Social Justice concerns. Social Justice is a valid concern that Christians must pursue. But so is "theosis." They threw the baby out with the bath water.

This seems an exaggeration to me-- or rather, what can be mounted in its defense leads me to the conclusion that if there is such a problem it dates back a century.

I don't think that individuals have lost a sense of sin. But I think that the culture as a whole can't make the connection right between justice and personal purity. Typically, the liberals forget that they need to be just they must strive for their own purity, while the conservatives forget that they cannot make justice out of purity. Purity without justice stunts the latter; justice without purity perverts the former.

Quote

You are correct that JP-II can't be blamed for American liturgical problems but the buck ultimately stops somewhere. And I must admit (reluctantly)--even though I'm the proverbial "throwback" at heart--that there are at least some hierarchs in the U.S. AmChurch that are trying to work at liturgical reformation within the cultural limits of the Novus Ordo environment.

Well, the buck stops in the pew, and at the altar, and at the bishop's palace. It's not a buck that can be passed.

Quote

The SSPX look Catholic but they really aren't. They are not in union with the Pope even though they claim they are.

In polity they may not be Roman, but they epitomize a certain kind of Roman excess exactly as the various ROACs and TOCs epitomize a certain Orthodox excess. Anglo-Catholics are (by SSPX standards) far more Catholic than generic American Catholicism, but it is precisely where the A-Cs aren't Catholic that the leeway to be a bad modernist Catholic opens up. Every denominational family is simultaneously a polity, a theology, and an institutional character; they may be connected (and the usually are) but it is impossible to explain things only in terms of one of these elements.

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."- St. John Maximovitch

[As far as communion in the hand, I still don't like it although I have received it this way myself. The practice in the RCC is still a long-term, innovative, liberal fad rather than a return to the early Church as is often proclaimed by AmChurch enthusiasts.]

I don't know about it being a fad. I remember being told of a Patristic passage talking about communion in the hand. I was told this in a course on sacramental theology by a conservative priest in one of the more conservative seminaries in the USA. I wish I could remember the Church Father cited.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Mystagogical Catechsis V -On the Eucharistic Rite" I have it in an edition translated by F.L. Cross orginally for SPCK in 1951 and reissued by St. Vlad's in 1986. paperback "Lectures on the Christian Sacraments". If you like, I'll post the quote later, when the children are out (as in "like a light")

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

"In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members ... Then after thou hast partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, allow thyself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touch it with thine hands, and hallow thine eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, Who hath accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries.” [Catechetical Lecture XXIII, 21, 22]

Well, see, that's where I think you're being parochial. Everyone said this about the Anglican bishops before the last Lambeth conference, too, and in the end the conservatives dominated and would have prevailed utterly were it not for a bit of parliamentary maneuvering.This seems an exaggeration to me-- or rather, what can be mounted in its defense leads me to the conclusion that if there is such a problem it dates back a century.

The point I was trying to make is that in the human-centered aspects of denomination affairs and management, power and influence play a role. I fervently hope that the next Pope is from the 3rd world. The future of the RCC looks to be in the 3rd World. I am tempted to say that Catholism in the developed world is a lost cause. Wow! I just said it! Well not exactly a lost cause but the developed world represents IMHO the new mission territory of the RCC.

Quote

I don't think that individuals have lost a sense of sin.

I met the new Father Deacon, a Russian (Eastern) Catholic, at our local Ruthenian parish the other day. He told me of a RC woman who attended her first Divine Liturgy and asked him why they had so many "Lord Have Mercy's" in their liturgy---you know the Littany of Peace and the other Litanies. He told her it was because they were all sinners in need of the Lord's mercy. She replied--allegedly--oh we Roman Catholics don't say all those Lord Have Mercy's because we are doing just fine or are not big sinners, or some similar sort of drivel. Don't kid yourself that the modern RCC faithful has lost its sense of sin. Just look at the abandonment of the Confessional!

I agree with the substance of the rest of your paragraph whose aforementioned quote I abstracted.

Quote

In polity they may not be Roman, but they epitomize a certain kind of Roman excess exactly as the various ROACs and TOCs epitomize a certain Orthodox excess. Anglo-Catholics are (by SSPX standards) far more Catholic than generic American Catholicism, but it is precisely where the A-Cs aren't Catholic that the leeway to be a bad modernist Catholic opens up. Every denominational family is simultaneously a polity, a theology, and an institutional character; they may be connected (and the usually are) but it is impossible to explain things only in terms of one of these elements.

I think I see your point but I am always leery about equating schismatic groups like the SSPX vis-a-vis the RCC with groups like the ROAC, HOCHNA, etc. in relation to the historic autonomous and autocephalous Orthodox Churches. I look upon the West's and East's problems with separtist groups in this regard as "apples & oranges." They have arisen from different histories. I'm not sure I can explain this any better or more concretely.

I don't know about it being a fad. I remember being told of a Patristic passage talking about communion in the hand. I was told this in a course on sacramental theology by a conservative priest in one of the more conservative seminaries in the USA. I wish I could remember the Church Father cited. As far as it being a "universal" practice I know of some parishes where the priest will give communion on the tongue.

Carpo-Rusyn

Yes, I have read about communion in the hand in the "early" Church but it is still one of those modern innovations in the RCC IMHO. One thing many people forget is that Piux XII addressed the supposed "return to the ancient church" attitude among RC liberals in his encyclical, Mediator Dei. He called it for what it was, a modern desire for innovation for innovation's sake!

Communion on the tongue is the normal method per the rubrics. In the hand is an indult or pastoral provision, an exception to the rubrics that has now become nearly universal in application. A priest, deacon, or Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist must give Holy Communion on the tongue to the communicant if he/she so desires it. A communicant cannot be refused this method legitimately. I have read (but have never seen) of situations in which the abuse of allowing in the hand only has happened in some RC parishes, but not in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. Perhaps in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles!

Let me give you another example. Over our main altar at my parish is a glorified Christ on a cross. Apparently this was the type of cross used by Catholics before the late Middle Ages. Subsequently a crucified corpus was used. The rubrics of the Roman Missal have always called for a crucifix on or near the altar--i.e., a crucified Jesus. The latest revision to the GIRM states this again. Our parish has supposedly already instituted the changes specified in the GIRM but not the crucifix! IMHO they have also not instituted other changes but I will have to re-read very carefully the revised GIRM to see what else is missing! And I don't have that bad a parish at that! Their liturgies, considering that it is the Novus Ordo Missae which I do not particularly care for, are pretty much according to the rubrics of the revised GIRM. Let's see what the eventual English translation of the latest Roman Missal has in store for us!

Thankfully, I'm "going east" for Great Lent thanks to the hospitality of the local Ruthenian parish, 80% of whose regular parishoners are canonical Latin-rite Catholics. It would seem that I'm not the only liturgical malcontent in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Mystagogical Catechsis V -On the Eucharistic Rite" I have it in an edition translated by F.L. Cross orginally for SPCK in 1951 and reissued by St. Vlad's in 1986. paperback "Lectures on the Christian Sacraments". If you like, I'll post the quote later, when the children are out (as in "like a light")

Ebor

Ever the reliable Samwise Gamgee, my favorite character in the Trilogy!

He told me of a RC woman who attended her first Divine Liturgy and asked him why they had so many "Lord Have Mercy's" in their liturgy---you know the Littany of Peace and the other Litanies. He told her it was because they were all sinners in need of the Lord's mercy. She replied--allegedly--oh we Roman Catholics don't say all those Lord Have Mercy's because we are doing just fine or are not big sinners, or some similar sort of drivel.

And you need not wonder why we (RC's) rarely say the Confiteor (I confess . . . ) during the penitential rite in the modern mass. Usually they tack on some pablum to the 3 Kyrie's ( the 3 Kyrie's being a hold over originally from the Greek liturgy).